The seasons prior to 1991, the Cowboys finished 7-9 and featured as similar mindset to run the ball and win with defense highlighted by the strength of Emmitt Smith's running. The team started out competitive then finished strong, much like we did last season.

1991 Cowboys started the season as a fringe possible playoff team, as with the prior season they were competitive in the beginning of the season but lost some heart-breakers in the middle, then turned it on to finish strong including a 5 game winning streak to finish 2nd in the NFC East with an especially thorough butt kicking of Eagles on the road. (A team that handled them early in the season and swept them the previous year) Finished 11-5 and won at Chicago as a wildcard only to lose to the Lions in the divisional round. This was also the first playoffs Dallas made in a number of seasons and after the Chicago win people were thinking this team could perhaps make it to the superbowl only to get smoked by a nobody QB in Detroit, unlike Wilson's record breaking Seahawks playoff performance in Atlanta.

The next season, the Cowboys would kick off the dynasty years with it's first of 3 Superbowl victories and finishing the season with the number one defense that was also 1st at stopping the run. The team was also the youngest in the league.

I don't know if Seattle will win a championship, let alone a dynasty, but the similarities between the two teams and history is striking. Of course, the bitter acknowledgement he is the 1992 Seahawks were terrible on offense and somehow finished 2nd in overall defense, sigh. I really hope that this parallel plays out just to get that one championship would be sweet for Seattle.

I've been telling my Cowboy fan friends that the Seahawks have at least 5 dudes with the Michael Irvin mentality. And, before any DUMBASS starts doggin Irvin, all dude did was practice, workout and study harder than anyone else on the team. Not even close - every Cowboy lists Irvin as the best teammate of all time. Baldwin, Wilson, Sherm, Earl and Red are just that like that.

pehawk wrote:I've been telling my Cowboy fan friends that the Seahawks have at least 5 dudes with the Michael Irvin mentality. And, before any DUMBASS starts doggin Irvin, all dude did was practice, workout and study harder than anyone else on the team. Not even close - every Cowboy lists Irvin as the best teammate of all time. Baldwin, Wilson, Sherm, Earl and Red are just that like that.

I truly think this team is constructed in the same way when looking over that Cowboys team. We need to add some more depth to the Defensive line to get a rotation as deep as they had, they were stacked on the DLine. We are stacked in the secondary pending another addition to the Nickle/Slot unless Thurmond gets to and stays healthy and perhaps we add another deep cover Safety so Kam can play more in the middle or we can send Earl in more blitz situations.

I've heard the comparisons before to that team and looking them over, I couldn't believe how much they do resemble each other. The records, context, and performances are very close.

About the working, no doubt about it, the Cowboys had to scratch their way up in that division. Washington and NY were Champions and Philly was pretty good as well. The guys that started on that team remembered that 1-15 season and those guys scrapped to get that first Superbowl win on top of being stacked with talent.

The wild card is the Rams, they have a legit defense, are young, and have a decent QB in Bradford + intelligent coaching. They could be the primary rival team going forward. Still, the Cowboys were able to win in a stacked division and NFC so what the hell, maybe we can do it.

Jimmy Johnson had a dynasty for Miami Hurricanes just like Pete had a dynasty at USC, and they both took a few season to make big noise in the playoffs. Main difference is that Schneider is far better than Jerry Jones.

pehawk wrote:I've been telling my Cowboy fan friends that the Seahawks have at least 5 dudes with the Michael Irvin mentality. And, before any DUMBASS starts doggin Irvin, all dude did was practice, workout and study harder than anyone else on the team. Not even close - every Cowboy lists Irvin as the best teammate of all time. Baldwin, Wilson, Sherm, Earl and Red are just that like that.

Yes, I see the comparisons.

Irvin was quite amazing in that he never really had anybody next to him. They ran a couple of guys out there that put up decent numbers, but then they'd leave via free agency and never get anywhere near where they were.

Irvin was big, fast, created mismatches like crazy (to the point where the Eagles went out and specifically got Bobby Taylor in hopes that they could find a corner big enough to hold him in check for a little bit). All Irvin did was carry that entire receiving corps. You could have put him and 4 junior college guys on the receiving group and they'd still produce.

Is the guy a turkey? For sure. Is he also a great receiver, and even being a Cowboy one of the most underrated players at his position or at any position during that era? 100% for certain. He didn't have a John Taylor on the opposite side or a Lynn Swann (yes, Stallworth was the GREAT receiver in that combo), or a John Jefferson. It was him and a series of guys that were only decent on the Cowboys, because Irvin made them better.

Irvin is definitely a clown, but the guy had no pretenses (meaning, he wasn't a phony like Jerry Rice, who was a machine, but acted like he was Mr. Nice Guy but was really just a dink). He was a hard working player and as incredible of a talent at WR as many of us will be lucky enough to see play. Aikman, Smith, Moose, and Novacek all get a lot of love. Irvin gets love, but without him, that team isn't the same team. Irvin was also a stellar blocker and wasn't afraid to put guys down when Smith was moving upfield. The offensive line they had was amazing too.

I see some definite comparisons to this Hawks team and that Hawks team and appreciate the OP for pointing it out. The Cowboys were an example of the fact that a team can really suck one year, but become the best team in the league in 3-4 years without much issue. Too bad the M's haven't gotten that memo.

Another big commonality is that the Cowboys weren't huge players in free agency, unless they had an absolute need and could get a vet that could still play in on a short term deal (like when they signed away Ray Donaldson from us to play center and anchor a line that was needing the boost). Schneider loves to stockpile picks, and like Jimmy Johnson, he knows how to use picks properly. Jones has proven that JJ was the genius there. I think the Hawks have multiple geniuses that have no problem leaving egos at the door and building a good team (which Jimmy J was able to do in Dallas for as long as possible before just burning out on Jerry's meddling).

Thanks for the comparison. It brought back a lot of interesting memories of seeing that team build up so quickly into a juggernaut. Why not us next? The pieces are there. Maybe we're just missing that Michael Irvin, big, fast, strong, and way overcompetitive WR in the fold.

12th_Bob wrote:The seasons prior to 1991, the Cowboys finished 7-9 and featured as similar mindset to run the ball and win with defense highlighted by the strength of Emmitt Smith's running. The team started out competitive then finished strong, much like we did last season.

1991 Cowboys started the season as a fringe possible playoff team, as with the prior season they were competitive in the beginning of the season but lost some heart-breakers in the middle, then turned it on to finish strong including a 5 game winning streak to finish 2nd in the NFC East with an especially thorough butt kicking of Eagles on the road. (A team that handled them early in the season and swept them the previous year) Finished 11-5 and won at Chicago as a wildcard only to lose to the Lions in the divisional round. This was also the first playoffs Dallas made in a number of seasons and after the Chicago win people were thinking this team could perhaps make it to the superbowl only to get smoked by a nobody QB in Detroit, unlike Wilson's record breaking Seahawks playoff performance in Atlanta.

The next season, the Cowboys would kick off the dynasty years with it's first of 3 Superbowl victories and finishing the season with the number one defense that was also 1st at stopping the run. The team was also the youngest in the league.

I don't know if Seattle will win a championship, let alone a dynasty, but the similarities between the two teams and history is striking. Of course, the bitter acknowledgement he is the 1992 Seahawks were terrible on offense and somehow finished 2nd in overall defense, sigh. I really hope that this parallel plays out just to get that one championship would be sweet for Seattle.

a side note to those no qb Detroit Lions- they were riding a high bigger than almost anything anyone could come up with. That was the thumbs up for Mike season where Mike Utley was paralyzed and they played for Mike the rest of the season. It was the closest Barry got to the Super Bowl.

Michael Irvin is what being American's about. Fur coats, blow, strippers. Yet, he took that "same intensity" on the field. He's the greatest. He's what James Brown was singing about in "Living in America"....screw Creed...he was a poser.

There are definite similarities between Jimmy Johnson and Pete Carroll. Both were great recruiters as college coaches and turned their programs into NFL factories. I think their experiences surrounded by so many NFL prospects gave them insight into who can actually play and what areas they excel at. This was probably useful when they blew up and rebuilt their rosters in the NFL.

It is no coincidence, I think, that Carroll tried to recruit Bruce Irvin and Richard Sherman to USC out of high school and went back to get them in the Draft much higher than most other FOs would have. Carroll seems to know what a player would be able to do at the NFL level even while that player is still in high school.

My concern is, how long will this personnel evaluation edge last for Carroll? After next year in the NFL, his 4th year, he will have been gone from college too long to have recruited any of the 2014 draft class. He will still have Schneider and McLoughlan, both accomplished personnel scouts, but they do not bring Carroll's hands-on exp. with blue chip prospects.

People forget about him because he faded into obscurity after he left the Cowboys, but Alvin Harper was a very good receiver for those Cowboy teams. He was the one who got the single coverage and made plays.

You brought up the player and explained him away in the same post. Harper was one of many who was Irvin's #2. He made a big statement about being a #1 receiver after his production in Dallas, and went where? Tampa or something? Wherever he went he fell off the map and wasn't half the player he was as a Cowboy. He was one of many that looked good because he played opposite Irvin. Then left and disappeared. He was just never the same. He should have given half that contract to Irvin for getting it for him. I think each one of those guys they ran out there just proved what a player Irvin really was.

SharkHawk wrote:You brought up the player and explained him away in the same post. Harper was one of many who was Irvin's #2. He made a big statement about being a #1 receiver after his production in Dallas, and went where? Tampa or something? Wherever he went he fell off the map and wasn't half the player he was as a Cowboy. He was one of many that looked good because he played opposite Irvin. Then left and disappeared. He was just never the same. He should have given half that contract to Irvin for getting it for him. I think each one of those guys they ran out there just proved what a player Irvin really was.

Not sure what you are trying to say, other than Irvin was really really good. Harper wasn't a Number 1, he proved that in Tampa. But those Cowboy teams had one great WR and really good WR as a #2. Just shows how strong that team was. I was just saying when people talk about how many offensive weapons that team had, they tend to forget Harper. Harper killed the Niners in the playoffs. Most likely because Irvin was double teamed, but still doesn't take away from his accomplishments.

SharkHawk wrote:You brought up the player and explained him away in the same post. Harper was one of many who was Irvin's #2. He made a big statement about being a #1 receiver after his production in Dallas, and went where? Tampa or something? Wherever he went he fell off the map and wasn't half the player he was as a Cowboy. He was one of many that looked good because he played opposite Irvin. Then left and disappeared. He was just never the same. He should have given half that contract to Irvin for getting it for him. I think each one of those guys they ran out there just proved what a player Irvin really was.

Not sure what you are trying to say, other than Irvin was really really good. Harper wasn't a Number 1, he proved that in Tampa. But those Cowboy teams had one great WR and really good WR as a #2. Just shows how strong that team was. I was just saying when people talk about how many offensive weapons that team had, they tend to forget Harper. Harper killed the Niners in the playoffs. Most likely because Irvin was double teamed, but still doesn't take away from his accomplishments.

SharkHawk wrote:You brought up the player and explained him away in the same post. Harper was one of many who was Irvin's #2. He made a big statement about being a #1 receiver after his production in Dallas, and went where? Tampa or something? Wherever he went he fell off the map and wasn't half the player he was as a Cowboy. He was one of many that looked good because he played opposite Irvin. Then left and disappeared. He was just never the same. He should have given half that contract to Irvin for getting it for him. I think each one of those guys they ran out there just proved what a player Irvin really was.

Not sure what you are trying to say, other than Irvin was really really good. Harper wasn't a Number 1, he proved that in Tampa. But those Cowboy teams had one great WR and really good WR as a #2. Just shows how strong that team was. I was just saying when people talk about how many offensive weapons that team had, they tend to forget Harper. Harper killed the Niners in the playoffs. Most likely because Irvin was double teamed, but still doesn't take away from his accomplishments.

I don't see what you're missing. I think I was pretty clear. Harper wasn't that good. You say he was because he faced single coverage against the niners and beat up on them. Why did he? Because nobody could cover Irvin. And none of the receivers that played opposite Irvin were really that good. Their play without Irvin shows you that they weren't as good as they seemed on Dallas. I understand that #2 receivers frequently have improved stats and performances because of who is on the opposite side, but to me, the Cowboys receivers all really sucked, and that is a testament to how good Irvin was, because he made the guys who played with him look good every week. They weren't that good.

It is like saying Steve Kerr is a great shooting guard. Kerr was a good shooter. That's about the extent of it. He benefited from the fact that nobody ever bothered to guard the guy because everybody was guarding Jordan and Pippen. This of course led to a lot of open looks for Kerr. This isn't meant to devalue what he did, because he hit those wide open shots, just like Alvin Harper caught those balls that were thrown on a dime by Aikman when he was being covered by the worst defensive back on the team, because everybody else was trying to cover Irvin or tackle Smith.

So Harper had a great game or games against the Niners... I think that further proves the point I was trying to make. Irvin was a great receiver and he wasn't a guy that could make his own plays and he wasn't a star. He happened to play opposite one of the best receivers ever on a team that had a great receiving TE, a great running back, a great OL, and a pinpoint accurate QB. If you think that team wouldn't have done the things they did without Alvin Harper on the field then I have news for you.... you're wrong. He left and I didn't see a significant dropoff in that team or in Irvin's performance. Harper was a #2 guy playing opposite one of the best #1's ever. That's about all I have to say. You think differently. I disagree. To each their own.